the alpine smart has 2 types ... one for twins/doubles ... the other for singles

the alpine smart works fine on the RIGHT 10.2 mm rope ... even when it gets thick and fuzzy with use ... as long as you also have the RIGHT biner

alot of it also has to do with practice and relearning how you rap/belay ... while the smart is more intuitive for belaying than say a gri gri ... it requires a bit of getting use to for rap belaying and leading

the trick is to use a supple and soft handling rope (tendon, beal, etc) or a thinner one ... and use a petzl william/DMM boa biner

Great, so you found out in a controlled environment, and know what to expect (or rather what to avoid) before commiting to a large rappel.

In reply to:

without realising that some biners cause a repeated savage lock on raps. Fuzzy vs new ropes made no difference.

Full testing should have been done by Edelrid before releasing the device.

I just checked the supplied manual, and it says the following:

edelrid wrote:

who is not descending (e. g. by means of a knot). 11.Abseiling: For abseiling we recommend to turn the securing device around so that the thumb bracket points to the body (Fig. 11a). Additionally, use a Prusik sling for back securing. The rope can also be inserted in the securing device as described under item 3 (securing a lead climber) (Fig. 11b/11c). For abseiling, the securing device may be unlocked by means of a karabiner attached to the unlocking eye. The unlocking eye is optimally adapted to the EDELRID Pure Karabiner. If an unfavourable combination of karabiner, securing device and rope is employed, the rope‘s run may either be inhibited or too fast. Check the compatibility of the combination, using it in a safe environment.

They do recommend to generally not use the locking mode for rappeling, and warn that it might be too fast or be "inhibited".

So - not a bug - works as designed…

To design an autolocker in such a way that you have to recommend against using it in autolocking mode for rappeling on the other hand…

My suspicion is that all three of the current crop of "alpine" assisted locking devices (the Mega Jul, the Alpine Smart, and the Alpine Up) were designed primarily to work with thin twin ropes, which are far more popular in Europe than in the U.S. and U.K., and the further you get from those sizes the more trouble you'll have with handling.

Doesn't the smart have two versions for different rope sizes? The mega jul also has a little brother, the micro jul, which is only rated for singles under 8.9mm (which rules out most single ropes!), doubles between 8 and 7.8mm and twins from 7.8 to edelrids new 6.9 twin, which you can only buy with the device included!

It does. And I suspect the ranges on both are "optimistic" in the sense I described.

There is another interesting feature of these ratings as they apply specifically to half ropes. The half-rope ratings usually allow for diameters smaller than single ropes. But when half ropes are used as intended, falls are typically caught on only one strand, and that strand can easily be smaller than the lowest-rated single rope diameter. This suggests that a number of devices aren't really adequate for holding severe half-rope belayed falls even though the half ropes are within the manufacturer's recommended range.

"If an unfavourable combination of karabiner, securing device and rope is employed, the rope‘s run may either be inhibited or too fast. Check the compatibility of the combination, using it in a safe environment."

They have got to be kidding. How many people here would do their own testing for all their ropes, all their biners and all their belay/rap devices, before using them on a crag ? Next manuafacturers will be asking us to test their harnesses before we use them on crags ... that would have stopped the fellow losing his approach shoes when the gear loop on his Edelrid harness broke http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-mega-jul/108052298

"If an unfavourable combination of karabiner, securing device and rope is employed, the rope‘s run may either be inhibited or too fast. Check the compatibility of the combination, using it in a safe environment."

They have got to be kidding. How many people here would do their own testing for all their ropes, all their biners and all their belay/rap devices, before using them on a crag ? Next manuafacturers will be asking us to test their harnesses before we use them on crags ... that would have stopped the fellow losing his approach shoes when the gear loop on his Edelrid harness broke http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-mega-jul/108052298

I'd definitely check out what works best with a new rap/belay device before taking out on a climb just to avoid something like this;

Syd wrote:

My wife took 10 minutes on a 12m rap with the mega jul, because she couldn't get the thing to release. Getting stuck on a long rap could be a nightmare.

I'd definitely check out what works best with a new rap/belay device before taking out on a climb just to avoid something like this; .

So did we ! Unfortunately we did no check all possible combinations of all our ropes, and all our biners. The combination we checked first worked fantastically well ... we were fooled !

Do you test the strength of your harness before using it ? Do you test under what circumstance trad gear will fail ? No. We trust that the manufacturer has carried out sufficient testing. Where there are dangers or limitations, there should be clear warnings, not fine print hidden in the instructions.

I'd definitely check out what works best with a new rap/belay device before taking out on a climb just to avoid something like this; .

So did we ! Unfortunately we did no check all possible combinations of all our ropes, and all our biners. The combination we checked first worked fantastically well ... we were fooled !

Do you test the strength of your harness before using it ? Do you test under what circumstance trad gear will fail ? No. We trust that the manufacturer has carried out sufficient testing. Where there are dangers or limitations, there should be clear warnings, not fine print hidden in the instructions.

That would be expecting a lot from the gear maker to give you an all inclusive list of all the possibilities your suggesting (persons weight, rope and condition, biner). Better to take what they give as a limited range suggestion and go from there. I tend to take all manufacturers information/warnings with a critical eye.

Of course I don't test the strength of a harness, the chance of failure there isn't at issue. I'm not losing any sleep over testing my pro either, but I do inspect the condition of all my gear the best I can frequently.

With a new belay device, couple of ropes in service at a time, a couple belay biners, doesn't take much time to find a combo with a good range.

We trust that the manufacturer has carried out sufficient testing. Where there are dangers or limitations, there should be clear warnings, not fine print hidden in the instructions.

youd be amazed at the number of climbers who said the alpine smart "sucks" for belaying rapping ... but who changed their mind after i showed them what biner and ropes to use ... and how to do it properly

in fact youd be amazed at the number of people who dont know how to rap smoothly on an ATC guide on a thick and fuzzy rope who i had to correct

We trust that the manufacturer has carried out sufficient testing. Where there are dangers or limitations, there should be clear warnings, not fine print hidden in the instructions.

While this might sound as I am defending edelrid at all cost, i can not let this stand here uncommented.

It is not hidden in the fine print, it is just a part of the instructions like everything else. And its the responsibility of the user to read those (or not).

The only things shown outside of the instrucitons, on the packaging, is belaying a leader and belaying a follower. No rappeling at all. The video linked with the QR code however does show rappeling, but as first choice it shows the classic tube mode with a prusik. And at the end of the video it clearly says "read the instructions".

And in the instructions, it says that some combinations can cause problems.

So it all boils down to the question: What behaviour is within parameters and to be expected, and what is not?

I did not expect that it would be that bad, but I did expect that I do have to do some testing to find out what works and what does not. To me it was obvious that an autolocking device that is also meant to be used with thin halves is going to be at least "difficult" with fat and/or fuzzy singles. And as disucssed in this thread it indeed is. However if i use it in classic tube mode, it works perfectly.

Maybe a difference between cultures? I, as a german, deem the american labelling madness utterly ridiculous. If I buy a coffee i expect it to be hot. Its friggin coffee! I see the fact that the cup has a label that tells me "warning! hot!" as an insult of my intelligence. Its the same with all the "climbing is dangerous!" labels on a lot of gear. I know that, dont need to tell me. If the gear is something that is not 100% known to me, I will consult the manual and the internet. But that will lead to a meta discussion that has nothing to do with the device at hand…

We trust that the manufacturer has carried out sufficient testing. Where there are dangers or limitations, there should be clear warnings, not fine print hidden in the instructions.

While this might sound as I am defending edelrid at all cost, i can not let this stand here uncommented.

It is not hidden in the fine print, it is just a part of the instructions like everything else. And its the responsibility of the user to read those (or not).

The only things shown outside of the instrucitons, on the packaging, is belaying a leader and belaying a follower. No rappeling at all. The video linked with the QR code however does show rappeling, but as first choice it shows the classic tube mode with a prusik. And at the end of the video it clearly says "read the instructions".

And in the instructions, it says that some combinations can cause problems.

So it all boils down to the question: What behaviour is within parameters and to be expected, and what is not?

I did not expect that it would be that bad, but I did expect that I do have to do some testing to find out what works and what does not. To me it was obvious that an autolocking device that is also meant to be used with thin halves is going to be at least "difficult" with fat and/or fuzzy singles. And as disucssed in this thread it indeed is. However if i use it in classic tube mode, it works perfectly.

Maybe a difference between cultures? I, as a german, deem the american labelling madness utterly ridiculous. If I buy a coffee i expect it to be hot. Its friggin coffee! I see the fact that the cup has a label that tells me "warning! hot!" as an insult of my intelligence. Its the same with all the "climbing is dangerous!" labels on a lot of gear. I know that, dont need to tell me. If the gear is something that is not 100% known to me, I will consult the manual and the internet. But that will lead to a meta discussion that has nothing to do with the device at hand…

qwert

While to a point you are right Syd is also right albeit perhaps a bit optimistic. Nobody has yet made a belay plate that copes with every rope though some have come close, a lot closer than Edelrid for sure. But the customer has every right when a device is marketed as versatile that it works with his karabiner and his rope.

The praise heaped on the MegaJul when it was announced wasn´t particularly suprising since this is usual with anything new but slowly reality reurns and a more objective view appears.

Manufacturers test as much as reasonable, obviously some more than others. The device I designed for DMM was tested for two years in the field without any problems occuring and was in production when one of the testers was abseiling with a particular brand of ice lines and more weight than normal as it was winter. We subsequently found 3 brands of ropes under 8.2mm which gave problems and since a device jamming under abseiling winter conditions could be a danger we dropped the product.

To achieve what was claimed initially by some reviewers with an assisted braking device like the MegaJul is impossible, by their design they are extremely finicky on rope and karabiner combinations. I know because I´ve made about 50 of the goddam things and the only solution is to go to a way of holding the karabiner off until the device is loaded or make the device adjustable. Petzl hold a patent covering nearly all the reasonable possibilities of doing this and it took Climbing Technology to work out a way around this.

It´s actually a bit of a blind alley in some ways as far as assisted braking goes since the additional force is fairly limited but they are the trendy thing at the moment. The Tre Sirius was a far better concept but probably marketed at the wrong time, as Edelrid hold the rights maybe they will re-engineer and re-launch it though looking at their single rope version I´m not so hopeful it won´t be screwed up somewhere along the line.

Having read this thread with all the complications it describes, I’ll just continue using my Trango Pyramid (an ATC type device), double up my attaching carabiner when using thin ropes and an auto-block when rappelling. . I do mostly easy trad climbs. If I did a lot of sport climbs or indoor climbing, I’d get a Grigri for those types of climbing. Everything written here discourages me from trying any of these new devices.

On average it is estimated that 1 in 100 repeated human operations will be in error. I've even been silly enough to arrive at a crag one time and discover I'd forgotten my climbing rope. Most accidents occur when a set of errors and circumstances conspire against someone. I think that it pays to have all equipment as bomber as practical to minimise the chances of accidents. The mega jul should be used with great caution.

I've been using the Click-Up for over 2 years now. The gyms that I climb in use Sterling 10.1 Slim Gym ropes. Keep in mind that they are only 10.1mm when they are fresh off of the spool. Being gym ropes, the get heavily abused by a lot of top ropers and hang doggers, so they get fat, fuzzy, and stiff relatively quickly.

I have never had any problems using the Click-Up to top rope belay or lead belay with those ropes, whether they were fresh off the spool, or well-abused.

Edelrid did eventually get back to me: "thank you for your feedback. Core-users like you help us to improve and get better at what we are doing. I will definitely pass your critizism on to our R&D department. "

... The Tre Sirius was a far better concept but probably marketed at the wrong time, as Edelrid hold the rights maybe they will re-engineer and re-launch it though looking at their single rope version I´m not so hopeful it won´t be screwed up somewhere along the line.

Jim, what are your concerns with the zap-o-mat? I have been using it for a couple of years and have no complains (except it wears off belay biners), even got used to rappelling on a single rope (one side)

Really hope they will bring the tre back, two I had are all worn off. May be all former tre fans will write them a note

The launch model we saw appeared somewht on the flimsy side and the whole thing unlikely to be robust enough to survive the treatment that a Grigri can for example, curious since the Eddy is somewhat over-engineered. The production models may well be better but user feedback seems somewhat scarce to put it mildly. Maybe you write a long-term test report? The concept was always a good one and perhaps if more people accepted the Zap-o-mat a twin-rope version would appear , a name change is where I´d start :-)

It´s actually a bit of a blind alley in some ways as far as assisted braking goes since the additional force is fairly limited...

This is by far the most interesting comment about all these devices I've heard. Could you elaborate a bit? I would think that extra braking force plus, ultimately, some slippage at very high loads because the braking force is "limited" might well be ideal.

Depends on what one wants or expects from a belay device, or even how you define these things. A manual device such as an ATC is entirely dependent on the belayers hand force to provide braking which has the advantage that the belayer has the option of what to do, let the rope slide a bit to avoid hitting the rock for example. With the assisted braking devices there is a certain amount of braking once they are activated which is fairly certainly not enough to stop falls in a useful distance if there is no input from the belayer but the option to remove the devices braking force is not available unless you previously rigged it differently so it is simply a manual device. Assisted locking devices, once they have been assisted to lock (as their description says) provide all the braking force without any input from the belayer.

The assisted braking devices then sit in a no-mans land being neither fully controlled by the belayer nor independent from the belayer and exactly where they are going to fit into the UIAA categories is questionable since the only define devices as manual or assisted locking.

3.1.1. Manual braking device Device controlled by hand force applied to the free end of the rope that produces a magnified force in the active rope in a continuous and reversible manner, such that when the force in the free end of the rope is reduced to zero, the force in the active rope becomes negligibly small.

Hard to see how any of the assisted braking devices conform to this.

3.1.2. Locking assisted braking device Device which acts as a manual braking device at low rope velocities, but at higher velocities, combined with hand control of the free end of the rope, produces a change in device geometry or in rope geometry, such that the rope movement slows down until arrested.

Or this, they will struggle with this one since the proposed test is fairly hard regarding the amount of slip allowed when tested without a braking hand to help.

So while they are an attractive concept especially regarding helping achieve an acceptable braking force for weaker belayers and/or thin ropes they suffer from lack of both complete contollabilty and ultimate braking power which is probably why the huge majority of climbers still use two different types of device to suit the specific circumstances rather than a compromise. Until we get some better data on exactly how much force they provide that is going to be the situation.

Tested my Mega Jul with a new Metolius Element today. Easily the best. Very smooth and easy rapping with smooth lock off and release. I suspect the almost circular cross section of the Element is what makes the difference.